|
|
Re: torque per cube?
[Re: MuscleMike]
#578467
01/12/10 07:30 PM
01/12/10 07:30 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,840
Flint, Michigan
B1Fish540
master
|
master
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,840
Flint, Michigan
|
Quote:
Thats why 440's were always perceived as torquey engines. A good amount of cubic inches with a head better suited for 350-370" engine.
Class over
Mike @MM
I think we all have taken head flow 101, Mike. What needs to be talked about more is specifics.
btw, all OEM heads back in the day were small valve, small port, except for the Hemi and the BB chev(well, the boss ford also). Take the 455 Buick, it had even smaller valves than the 440. These things made huge TQ for propelling the big Buicks down the road.
Why a big motor responds this way, tho, is still a little murkey. Is the small valve producing a faster/richer charge earlier in the RPM range resulting in more power? And is that alone producing more torque? My question i guess is: Does intake velocity account for the low RPM torque in these engines, along with the longer stroke/displacement?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
